The intent of this document is to provide a summarized version of the key issues contained in the Draft EIS. These issues are the ones that have given rise to concerns and criticisms over the past 5 years. All of these issues have been addressed in an open and objective manner in the draft EIS. The key issues are described in narrative fashion below along with references to the page numbers where they appear in the EIS. The accuracy of the information contained herein can be verified by researching the references in the full EIS document.
After 20 years of planning, 5 years of intense study, numerous public meetings, and input from all relevant regulatory agencies, the Draft EIS has ultimately recommended construction of a trail that most of Anchorage knew was the correct route from the outset. The draft EIS has recommended the Orange Modified route as the preferred alternative. This route follows the coast in a manner much like the existing Coastal Trail. It passes through forested inland areas in Kincaid Park, follows the coast moving up and down the bluffs between Kincaid and Oceanview and then takes an upland route along existing railroad right-of-way to Potter Marsh
The route provides numerous coastal access points and nearly continuous coastal views, while at the same time avoiding serious impacts to wildlife, wetlands, homeowners and existing users of facilities along the trail route. The route is safe, free-flowing, and mostly uninterrupted over its entire length, much more so than any of the other routes considered.
The recommendations contained in the draft EIS are the result of countless hours of work by highly qualified and experienced private consultants and government agency personnel. The consultant team alone represents nearly 648 combined years of experience in their individual areas of expertise. Residents of Anchorage are encouraged to have faith in the good work of the consultants and rely on the information contained in the draft EIS. To do otherwise, or to succumb to the rhetoric of the Nimby's in South Anchorage, would fly in the face of the processes we routinely use to make the difficult choices in our lives.
The coastal trail has been acknowledged and included in Municipal trail planning documents as far back as 1980. Residents of South Anchorage have known of the possibility of such a trail for this entire period. Actual easements for a below-the-bluff trail have been incorporated into a number of private properties during this period and most real estate agents have made developers and the new residents that have built along the bluff aware of the trail from the outset. The concept and location of the trail should come as no surprise to anyone living along the bluff in South Anchorage. Reference Pages 1-5, 6, & 7 of the EIS.
The intensive study of the trail began in late 1997 and has been ongoing ever since. There has been an extensive public outreach program and regulatory agency involvement in the study and planning process. Nearly 40 separate public meetings have been held to inform residents and seek input into the trail design. Thirteen municipal, state and federal agencies participated in the process and over 25 coordination meetings were held with these agencies. This project has received more public input and agency scrutiny than any other recreational project in Anchorage's history. Reference Pages 6-1 through 6-6 of the EIS.
The coastal trail is not merely a neighborhood trail; it is a regional trail that is intended to serve all of the Anchorage community. According to a Craciun Research survey in 1999, over 77% of our residents use the trail system in Anchorage. Of those who use the trail system, over 78% of them have used the existing Coastal Trail and 48% indicate a preference for the coastal trail compared to all other trails. The trail users come from all walks of life and all areas of the city, not just those who happen to live near the trail. Clearly, the coastal trail is a popular and preferred trail for all residents of Anchorage.
Extending the coastal trail to South Anchorage will allow it to serve the broadest spectrum of users because of its location, accessibility, lack of road crossings and safety. It will provide access to the wonders of the coastal wildlife refuge that have previously been inaccessible to all but a few local homeowners and adventuresome souls. It has been designed to be handicap accessible and will be fenced in many areas to keep users away from any hazards that may exist. There will be 14 off-street parking areas and 11 connecting trails providing safe, easy access for users. Reference Pages 2-14 through 2-17, 4-16, and 4-27,28 of the EIS.
This section of the coastal trail is also an important link in a continuous trail system that ultimately will stretch from Girdwood (and points even further south) all the way North to Palmer and Wasilla. This is the only section of that trail system that is receiving any opposition, and most of that is coming from the residents in South Anchorage. Failing to build the trail as it is recommended by the EIS would be a significant loss for all of Anchorage and would be a shameful missing link in the overall trail system.
The route of the coastal trail does not pass over or through any of the Coastal Wildlife Refuge lands. It is adjacent to the refuge and in a few isolated locations the route actually passes under the refuge through tunnels. Although the trail's location will improve access to the wildlife refuge, it is not expected to negatively affect any of the current activities that take place in the refuge, nor will it affect the environment and habitat qualities that make the refuge so attractive. Reference Pages 4-122 through 4-131 of the EIS.
Various design and mitigation measures will be taken to minimize any impacts that may occur to either the wetlands or wildlife within the refuge. Such mitigation measures include construction techniques to maintain existing water flows and avoid disturbance to wetlands, fences to separate users from sensitive areas, and educational/interpretative signs to control the adverse behavior of users. Reference Page 4-143 of the EIS.
The compatibility of the coastal trail with the wildlife refuge is best exemplified by referencing ADF&G's own words in their 1991 management plan:
"The refuge contains a very small slice of the wetland and wildlife resources in the state. Thus, its biological importance to survival of wildlife species is less important than its role in promoting public education and appreciation of wetlands and wildlife."
This statement, plus the fact that the EIS admits the trail will not diminish the things that make the wildlife refuge important, attest to the compatibility of the refuge and the trail. Reference Page 4-145 of the EIS.
The land the coastal trail passes through contains no threatened or endangered species whatsoever. It does contain a few sensitive species (bald eagles and belugas) as well as a collection of birds, mammals and invertebrates. There is one eagle that could be affected by the trail, the impact of which will be mitigated by trail design. The same is true of any belugas that may venture near the trail. Reference Page 4-79 of the EIS.
No significant impacts are anticipated for birds along the entire coastal trail route. Although some birds would likely move to other locations in the wildlife refuge where adequate habitat already exists, the only possible loss to bird populations would be for sandhill cranes. The experts suggest that a maximum of 3 sandhill crane nests could be affected, but admit that they would expect some of the cranes to relocate elsewhere in the refuge. Although the trail itself may not disturb the cranes, straight-shooting crane hunters in the fall may make this whole issue a moot point. Reference Pages 4-56, 57 and 4-78 of the EIS.
The land along the coastal trail includes a small number of bear, moose, lynx, coyote and wolf. The presence of the trail is expected to fragment their habitat somewhat and may cause some of them to move elsewhere. Mitigation measures to minimize these disturbances have been carefully coordinated with the resource agencies and the overall impacts are considered to be minimal. Reference Pages 4-67, 68 of the EIS.
There will be no impacts to invertebrates, including bristleworms, anywhere along the trail. Reference Page 4-71 of the EIS.
There are virtually no impacts anticipated to these or any other historical uses of the land along the trail route. No part of the trail would be within an area open to hunting. Those areas of the trail that are adjacent to hunting areas have enough vertical or horizontal separation to allow traditional hunting programs to continue with little disturbance. Reference Pages 4-127,8 and Figure 4.24 of the EIS.
The trail has been routed around both the rifle range and the motocross areas in such a manner as to cause no disturbance to those uses or users. The trail arcs around the inland side of the motocross area and passes under the Seward Highway through a tunnel before reaching the rifle range. These activities will be able to continue as they always have. Reference Pages 2-15,16 and Figures 4-23 & 4-25 of the EIS.
The coastal trail has been routed in most areas to be out of the direct line-of-sight of homeowners, either at the toe of the bluff or part way up the bluff. The trail will not be visible from most bluff-top homes except at the edge of their yards or from stairways the homeowners have built on the bluff. In many cases, dense vegetation on the bluff or at the base of the bluff will make the trail all but invisible to homeowners. Reference Page 4-85 of the EIS.
The coastal trail route will require no residential relocations and no business relocations along its entire route. It will be necessary to acquire right-of-way easements from a number of residential owners. However, the majority of these acquisitions will occur on steep bluffs or in wetlands at the toe of the bluff that are currently of little use to the homeowners. In most cases, these are swampy or brushy lands of little value. Regardless, the affected homeowners will be compensated for these easements in accordance with Alaska law. Reference Pages 4-22,23 of the EIS.
There are several residential locations where the existing landscape will change and will be visible to the homeowners. These locations occur where the trail moves up or down the bluff or where tunnel construction is necessary to avoid crossing into wildlife refuge lands. Where these situations occur, the landscape will be revegetated as closely as possible to its original state to minimize long term disturbances. Reference Pages 4-87 through 4-90 of the EIS.
Construction of the coastal trail will provide over $35 million in work for Anchorage contractors and consultants, the majority of which (91%) will be funded with federal money that cannot be used to construct roads. By comparison, the total cost of the coastal trail is similar to that which was expended to build the International Airport Road/Minnesota Bypass Interchange. From a quality of life perspective, the Coastal Trail is a hands-down winner when compared to just another highway interchange.
The amount of money the state would be required to contribute, a little over $3 million, would be about the same as what was spent for the South Anchorage Ball Fields or the Chuck Albrecht (Simonian) Little League fields. Again, 14 miles of high quality trail with access to a wildlife refuge by all Anchorage residents seems like a much better bang for the buck than a few more ballfields that are used only in the summer by a limited portion of the population.
In addition to the infusion of construction dollars into the Anchorage area, there are other economic spinoffs that work in favor of the trail. There is little doubt that, in spite of the opposition from the bluff homeowners, property values of homes adjacent to the trail would increase due to proximity to the trail. Thus, the homeowners win and the city tax base would increase as a result. This would affect not only those homes directly on the trail route, but also many homes that are nearby that would have easy access to the trail and its recreational opportunities. These benefits have been proven time and again throughout the country where trails have been built, usually in spite of opposition from those who seemingly benefit most from trail construction.
Finally, tourism usage would be expected to grow and the trail would be an even greater magnate for tourists and tourist dollars than the current trail. Tourist dollars have extensive impacts throughout the business community in the form of travel, transportation, hotel, restaurant and, most importantly, retail and service industry expenditures. Reference Pages 4-24,25,26 of the EIS.
The Municipality currently maintains trails in Anchorage, with substantial help provided by volunteer non-profit groups such as dog mushers, nordic skiers and skijorers. The Municipality currently maintains 138 miles of paved trails and 134 miles of plowed winter walkways, in addition to unpaved ski and hiking trails.
Maintenance of the coastal trail would be handled in a similar manner. The Municipality currently spends about $1500 per mile per year on trail maintenance. Because of the linear nature of the trail and the lack of road crossings, the estimated cost to maintain the coastal trail is estimated to be about the same. Thus, the total annual maintenance cost is expected to be about $20,000 per year, which is only a 9% increase in the historical overall cost of trail maintenance. Reference Pages 3-25 & 4-13 of the EIS.
If you would like to contact Friends of the Coastal Trail, you may do so by e-mail at: